Hannan v. Dusch Case Brief Hannan v. Dusch – Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia – 1930  Procedural Context:  Defendant asserted that it only implied a legal right to enter, and was not a guaranty against damages resulting from the wrongful act of a third person who may happen to be in possession  Plaintiff sought review of the judgment of the Circuit Court, holding that defendant was not in breach of contract for failure to oust holdover tenants and place plaintiff in possession  The Court affirmed  Issue:  Does a lessor, even without an express covenant, have an implied covenant to deliver possession to a lessee?  Facts:  The Plaintiff, Hannan (Plaintiff), leased property from the Defendant, Dusch (Defendant), for a term of 15 years. When the Plaintiff attempted to take possession of the property, he discovered there were tenants still on the property. Defendant refused to take action to evict tenants and argued that it was the Plaintiff’s duty to see that the premises were available. The Plaintiff sued to recover damages  Plaintiff leased property from defendant  Defendant failed to oust previous holdover tenants  Plaintiff contended that defendant's failure to remove the obstruction to his entry and put him in possession was a breach of contract and deed  Defendant asserted that it only implied a legal right to enter, and was not a guaranty against damages resulting from the wrongful act of a third person who may happen to be in possession  Plaintiff sought review of the judgment of the Circuit Court, holding that defendant was not in breach of contract for failure to oust holdover tenants and place plaintiff in possession  The Court affirmed  Holding:  Affirmed trial court judgment  Reasoning:  The judgment holding that defendant was not in breach of contract for failure to oust holdover tenants was affirmed because defendant's only duty under lease was to give legal possession, not to put plaintiff in possession against the holdover tenant    The court held that defendant, absent an express provision found in the lease, impliedly covenanted that plaintiff shall merely have the legal right to possession at the beginning of the term; that is, that the possession shall not be withheld by defendant himself or by one having a paramount title, but that there was no implied covenant to put the lessee in possession as against an intruder. Virginia abides by the American rule, which recognizes the lessee’s right to possession, but imposes no duty on the lessor to deliver possession. The lessee may covenant to require the landlord to deliver possession. There may be an ethical duty in good conscience upon the lessor to oust the old tenants, but the duty to oust the old tenants by statutory remedy rested on lessee The court discussed the two conflicting rules applicable to the case. The English rule on one hand, implies a covenant requiring the lessor to put the lessee in possession. The American rule, on the other hand, recognizes the lessee’s right to possession, but imposes no duty on the lessor to deliver possession. The court noted that there were remedies available to the lessee under Virginia law regarding unlawful entry and detainer. Therefore, the American rule was the rule that Virginia chose to adopt.  Disposition of the Case:  Affirmed trial court judgment  Rule of Law:  Two principles should, in actions for breach of contract or tort, be impressed upon juries: (1) the plaintiff should recover only such damages as have directly and necessarily been occasioned by the defendant's wrongful act or default; and, (2) that if the plaintiff by reasonable exertions or care on his part could have prevented such damages, he is bound to do so; and so far as he could have thus prevented them, he cannot recover therefor. The injured party is entitled to recovery only such sums as will make him whole. This he is entitled to recover, so far as his injury has been the direct or natural cause of the wrongful act of the other party.  Under the American rule, the lessee has a right to possession, but absent an explicit covenant, the lessor has no duty to deliver possession.